I’ve recently discovered Byron Henderson’s LayoutVision website. Before finding his web-site, I was particularly attracted to his “Black Diamonds and Beer” layout on page 51 of the Jan 2010 Model Railroad Hobbyist magazine. While it has a loop for continuous running, it also has two lengthy branches that also make it a point-to-point layout.
But after reading his blogs, particular “The Tragedy of CAD-Too-Soon” and “There should be warnings …”, I feel I need a better understanding of layout design. He’s suggested that many published layouts are poor examples of good layout design, but is kind enough not to say which.
I was hoping that some of you would fill in the blanks and describe common mistakes and features to be avoided in layouts.
The best info I can see is for you to buy John Armstrong’s “Track planning for realistic operation”.You can order it through Internet from Model Railroader and you’d have it in a few days.This books explains all the ins and outs of layout designs very clearly.A “must have” publication for a modeler.
No idea from the get-go what you want in terms of a general vision, and no identifiable relation to a given prototype’s own plans for a certain area based on revenue. In other words, if you only want an oval with some add-on stuff, that’s what you’ll get, and it may make you happy in the long run. Most of us find, to our dismay, that we’re bored and would rather have some switching capacity for a change, or an engine-servicing facility, or maybe a large industry to service.
The tendency to cram more track into your space than is reasonable…linked strongly to the first point above.
Not knowing what the minimum curves and maximum grades are for the equipment you will run. That should be carefully borne in mind all through the planning process.
Not providing for ease of maintenance. That means actually fixing mistakes or things that go wrong over the first bit, and then later on, but also in daily operations where you make turnout lining mistakes and experience a derailment. If you have to get foot stools and ladders to reach up and over things, it will get old really fast. The general rule is that you can only reach safely, most often, about 26" into a layout’s surface from any one vantage point. PLAN FOR ACCESSIBILITY! Think of where your tracks are in relation to the edge of the benchwork, and think also of how high the working surface is in relation to your blind elbows.
That’s probably enough of a start…I’ll let the other fellers add their own learning.
Your preferences in operations should drive your layout design. Each designer has their own operational preferences, and their layout plans tend to favor those preferences. And the criticisms of published designs will also reflect those operational preferences.
The smaller the layout, the less room there is for diversity of operations, scenery, and anything else. So if plausibility is one of your high priority layout goals, the small layout is going to have to be very focused on a particular operational aspect (prototype switching, switching puzzle, continuous running, moving through a scene) almost to the exclusion of others. If the tight focus omits the critic’s favorite mode of operations, the layout plan is doomed to get a poor review.
Knowing what your operational preference is the key. But unfortunately, most of us have no idea of what our operational preferences are until we have gotten a layout or two to the point of trying out operations. We know what designs seem to appeal to us, but won’t know our true preferences until we get there. This is where the criticism from others that a layout is a poor design because it doesn’t support the critic’s preferences can get us into trouble. We end up assuming that the critic’s vision is the same as our vision.
Then we get into technical errors. Curves being drawn sharper than accurate scale would suggest. Turnouts drawn shorter and sharper than the ones you buy at the LHS. Insufficient horizontal and vertical clearances between tracks. Insufficient room for the planned structures, if any structures were planned at all. Grade calculations with no allowance for needed vertical transitions. Keep in mind that published track pl
Ditto! John Armstrong’s “Track Planning for Realistic Operation” as a must-have is an understatement.
An outstanding PDF-Download many model railroaders overlook, Realistic freight operations, by one of model railroading operations pioneers from the 1940s-1960s, Frank Ellison – includes an MR-series from circa 1950s.
Example: Every type of railroad yard (and design) is discussed in a simple-to-understand way that is still hard to find in print today – important for planning.
My first exposure to Frank Ellison’s “Delta Lines” was in 1980’s (now out of print) Classic Articles from Model Railroader – where Delta Lines’ trackplan is published from a 1955 MR article, and you are instantly mesmerized by how smoothly the layout intertwines for its operations.
PDF-Download Tip: I print PDF-Downloads to a black & white HP-Laserjet (that just won’t quit) with really nice greyscale recognition for color pages – three-hole punched – very inexpensive to print. If you subscribe to MR’s weekly e-mail – you’ll be ti
Byron actually does say quite a bit about what he considers bad design ideas (but you don’t have to agree with him about that) - but in a couple of other blog posts on the same blog:
Just to put it into simple words - a badly designed layout does not do, what you want it to. To come up with a good design, you need to have a fairly precise idea on what you would like to have and what you can achieve. Much has been said and written about developing your own givens and druthers - for me the most important step to a well designed layout!
Without any idea on what you would like to get out of building your layout, even a proven design, made by others, may not turn out a good layout for you, unless you are able to understand the rational behind the design.
A bad design is one that does not accomplish what the owner wants and a good layout is one that does. If your goal is to run multiple trains around and have as many trains orbiting as possible a “good” design for you will be be very different from a “good” design for somebody that is very interested in industrial switching.
The hard part about designing a layout is NOT arranging the track or benchwork. The hard part about designing a layout is deciding what YOU really want and making the required compromises to get what you want onto the footprint in the basement.
Those two things never go away. A friend is about to start designing a 3000 sq ft layout. He has every known fact about the area he wants to model. The major challenge isn’t what to include, its what to throw away. Even with a huge area, even with double deck, you can’t include everything. If you are looking at published plans, pick a plan for an area about 10-20% smaller than the area you have. Then expand that plan to fill your area, without increasing the number of tracks. You will end up with a better looking layout.
The biggest mistake I have made is not designing adequately for people, even if it is just me. Moving around and working on the layout should be a priority. I personally find that a layout that is easy to move around and work on is a real joy outweighing longer mainlines, more benchwork, etc.
My current layout has minimum 3ft aisles, no duckunders, 50" height. It’s a lot better than the prior layout that had a duckunder into the room, 58"height, and a 2ft aisle and a 2 1/2 ft aisle. My next layout (already in the planning stages due to moving) will also have 3ft aisles, no duckunders, and be 50" high.
The first step is not to start with any kind of track planning. Instead it is key to have clear vision what the purpose of the layout in terms of the prototype should be.
It is an unfortunate but enduring truth that the first 3 hour operating session probably tells you more about your layout design flaws than 3 years of thinking about layout design. Certainly the Armstrong books (don’t forget Creative Layout Design, a sort of addendum to Track Planning for Realistic Operation) help, but aborbing all the lessons in a theoretical sense is no easy task. I suspect even Armstrong had this experience.
Just two aspects to illustrate the point.
Run around tracks – think how you actually switch an industry or enter a yard and whether a run around track is needed and where. I have seen many layouts have to be “amended” after the first few operating sessions to add run around tracks. I have had the opportunity to operate on a layout custom designed by Don Mitchell and was impressed that sight unseen he knew exactly where to put all the needed runaround tracks.
Yard or storage tracks – why are they as long or short as they are? If a track can hold 1 and 1/2 cars, it is either too long or too short. Sometimes adding a turnout just to fit in yet another yard or storage track that is too short actually ends up costing you yard capacity (assuming you keep cars off the turnout and away from the fouling points – I have seen this happen and yet things looked great on the track plan.
I have never used CAD or similar programs except as demos – but I would generally agree that a simple line on a piece of paper to represent track, whether drawn by pencil or computer can be a mightly misleading thing.
I just posted a series of articles on my blog about how I designed my current layout.
A few words to add to what I have written on my blog: A layout is not a static diorama - trains have to move! However, the the kind of movements that you would like your trains to make can vary widely. Don’t assume that you have to do what everybody does. Make no mistake - industrial switching and timetable/train order operations are great but there are other kinds of operations that might work better for you.
Having loads of experience in education I am sure of a just a few things.
If a student doesn’t want to learn, don’t even try. The great students learn, with math and physics maybe even to fast, the in-betweens are the targets. For them you can occasionaly open a door to a new world.
Byron Henderson talked about a friend of a friend who wanted more operation, no staging ,no extra spurs; he meant to double track his layout. Go against it and you will lose that one; explain that with double track swapping trains (from and to staging) is even more fun and you have a chance.
And reasoning that as long as you do snaptracks a change is easily made. So maybe, when building a more permanent layout, you could better do both. (add double track and staging)
Lots of stuff is written about short and long term achievements. Problem with modelrailroading is the time it takes to build a great layout.
Back to the original poster.
Cuyama is afraid of newbies going for great looking plans, because the drawing is so beautifily done. Or the picture in MR or 102 Realistic Railroads is so great looking. Because the car looks great it must be a good car. Just buy it now!!!
I still remember the first modelrailroad (to me) in the late 50’s with a three track staging yard.(Miniatur Bahnen 1959. W.Germany). It seemed so obvious; I could have found out myself. Not having the same train running around and around in the same direction all the time. And creating a break, so the local could do its job. Not formal operating, that door had still to be opened. Having a passing siding w
Layouts really need staging. Failure to provide for it will severely limit what you can do with the layout.
If your yards are always 80% full, they really are storage tracks, not yards. Either reduce the number of cars you have on the layout, or increase the amount of yard space.
Yards should function independently of the main lines. If you’re constantly “fouling” the main line with switching operations, you’ve violated this principle.
Thanks, Mr. B for being the straight man to make my point. [:)] If your desired operations are similar to Mr. B’s, his statements are right on the mark. But…
Layouts do not “really need staging.” A more correct statement is, “Staging significantly enhances certain types of operation.”
If the operations of your layout is based on a series of trains traveling over a main line, staging will definitely assist in achieving the goal. The staging enables a series of trains without having to break up/make up a train every time another train is needed.
OTOH, a switching puzzle gains little or nothing from having space devoted to staging. On a one-man “engineer” style layout, where the operator starts with an engine and a yard at one end, and ends up with an engine and a yard at the other, the only benefit from staging is variety in rolling stock. And the cost of staging is a shorter run or fewer industries to switch along the run. On a test run layout, staging again is unnecessary.
I’ve built layouts without staging and never felt I had deprived myself. The present layout will have one passing siding that will work as “sort of visible staging”, holding a passenger train until I am ready to run it around the loop. And I may eventually add a cassette that attaches to the layout to swap rolling stock in or out - if I ever build enough rolling stock to justify the cassette!
The same can be said of the “never foul the main with yard operations” design principle. There are plenty of prototype yards that don
You will have to run the very same cars every day, you could call it virtual staging. The next day you imagine the cars are “fresh”. But when you have more cars in the future? (see below)
Again some form of staging
Some staging again
Are you the exception? Most people suffer from to many cars.
I stated it earlier; building a model railroad takes it time. Once you are beyond snapping tracks, changes are not always easy to make. Planning some staging in future seems wise; the only thing you need is a track to the edge of your pike. In the design stage just a simple line. On a small switching pike a cassette can make so much difference. Staging and a long tail track for the same prize.
Keep in mind the OP wanted to keep newbies from bad designs. Staging should be on the short list of issues they need to hear (learn) about.
On a “one train a day” RR fouling the main is a bit weird. Try to read it as : switching and mainline running can be conflicting. Reading between the lines and asking yourself the question why statements were made, is more productive the
Mmm - Fred did not say he didn’t have staging on his present layout. He said he had a single track that would function as a “sort of visible staging” track.
Also, Fred did not say that a cassette would not be staging. It is a form of staging.
What he said is that he had built previous layouts that had no form of staging (ie somewhere - hidden or visible, fixed or detachable - where an already assembled inbound train could wait to make it’s dramatic entry on the main stage).
Fiddling cars on or off the layout between sessions isn’t really staging as such, even if you label it “virtual staging”
But you can off course “prestage” a train somewhere on a layout that doesn’t have a dedicated staging track, starting the operating session with the train “having just arrived from ” and ending the session with the train “about to depart for ”.
There are lots of ways to design layouts and to set up different operating schemes for a model railroad. That’s one of the things that make model railroading so fun!
I see staging as a way to have “fresh” cars the next day. How it is done is a different question. Fiddling during or before an “operating” session, just imagine it, having a large staging yard or some thing in between it all comes down to create a destination (or starting point) for our cars.
BTW the most difficult part of every conversation is finding out what the other really means.
I see folks have already linked to a number of my thoughts on the topic, so I’ll be very brief. The biggest shortcomings in layout design that I observe day-in and day-out:
Not having a clear vision of what you want the layout to accomplish – this leads to many other errors
Too much track!!
Too-tight radii and turnouts for the desired era/equipment!!
Plans drawn unrealistically; e.g., tracks too close to benchwork edges or to other tracks, no room for vertical grade transitions, not allowing room for turnout points, drawing curve radii too small and turnouts too sharp to be practical, etc., etc.
Thinking only of rectangles for benchwork and thinking only of islands for layout footprints
Overuse of switchback industry spurs
Not allowing sufficient length for switch leads and runarounds (or leaving them out altogether)
Basically, much of this comes from folks creating track plans who have limited or no exposure to layout design and prototype principles and best practices. But it’s also a shame that so many of these same issues turn up so often in published plans as well (even “prize winners”).
